User talk:Flynneffects

Your obsessive hatred of notable events about Oprah

Try to follow your own advice when you comment on my edits. Using dramatic and inflammatory words like "obsession" and "hatred" is juvenile name-calling and has no place here. I have relatively few edits on Oprah. They are all notable and well-cited from mainstream media. I can't help that you consider them to be negative. Wikeye (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that sexual misconduct occurred at Oprah's school, while the media have only reported alleged misconduct. In that regard, you are more biased than the media that you condemn. All of my edits are notable and well-cited. On the other hand, you have no support for your accusation that I am deliberately trashing Oprah's reputation. Rather, your vindictive rants about my edits are starting to look like you are stalking and slandering me in order to trash my excellent reputation. You are not Wikipedia, so stop using the term "we". Are you one of those "public relations" people who Dr. Phil hired to "preserve and maintain" his public image? Or do you work for Oprah? Either way, you need to stop stalking and slandering me.Wikeye (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I work for a tiny newspaper with no connections to Oprah or Dr. Phil. There are people who will fight for justice without needing to be financially compensated for it. Do you work for a competing talk show that airs in the same time slot as Oprah or Dr. Phil? Flynneffects (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't work for any talk shows. Just for the record, you have been involved with Wikipedia for less than 2 months. During that time, you have edited only 8 pages and have created none, yet you fancy yourself a defender of Wikipedia, Dr. Phil and Oprah, and assume that you know better than others why Wikipedia was created, what it stands for, and "who we are." Most of your edits are related to "defending" the image of Oprah or Dr. Phil while stalking/slandering me. Well, except for that IQ stuff you pretend to know about. None of your edits are well-cited or even cited at all. It's all just your opinion, which has no basis in fact. This is a great lesson for new contributors who start editing willy-nilly without bothering to read the Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you do so before you post anything further. Thank you.Wikeye (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wrecking good articles with trivial details

You mean stop wrecking good Oprah articles with trivial details, right? Thank you for your concerns. The only time wasted was my own (and yours, apparently). I made a little mistake; we all do. You shouldn't attack me for that. Some would argue that the article was already clogged with trivia in the first place and that my edits are significant, interesting facts that help to balance a cheerleading-type article that reads more like an Oprah press release than a proper encyclopedic article. Others might say that what looks silly and disproportionate are all the silly detail devoted to nonobjective pronouncements by media talking heads that are used as citations in this article. My edits balance the article, thereby putting Oprah's Time 100 "honors" in their proper perspective. I am very concerned that you are repeatedly attacking me due to lack of experience and undue anxiety in promoting Oprah Winfrey at the expense of balance and objective facts.Wikeye (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The "prestigious publication" you refer to is Time, which is the same entity that publishes what you inappropriately label "meaningless obscure unscientific online poll". The results of the poll are not "false." If what you say is true, then certainly Time, a "prestigious publication" would not publish such a poll. As you say, the Time 100 is based on "editorial judgment"--not objective facts. Just because voters in the poll have different opinions than you is no reason to marginalize their opinions in favor of promoting a single-minded agenda to enhance Oprah's image by citing like-minded opinions and ignoring objective facts. I think as you read more of the Wikipedia and gain more experience, you'll figure out what I'm talking about.Wikeye (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting silly. You have a very short history of useful edits. Most of your "work" consists of attacking me and supporting Oprah Winfrey. For all I know, you are one of her PR people trying to rehabilitate her public image. And not too successfully, I might add. Trust me, Oprah doesn't need you and others to exaggerate her popularity, influence, achievements, etc. Her record stands on its own, without any hype from anyone else. Your personal attacks are incorrect and show that you have a dubious agenda here. Dr. Phil is not related to Oprah--where did you get that? Silly. All of the information I added about Dr. Phil is objective, factual and well-cited. I think it was the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists who first disclosed that the girl he had a relationship with was a teenager. I understand your reaction to this revelation--it is disgusting. Your assumption that she was an "adult" is incorrect. She was a patient of Dr. Phil's with a mental problem and therefore not necessarily a competent adult at the time. The Texas State Board reviewed the case and decided that Dr. Phil's conduct was inappropriate. They even ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which he failed to do. If you would try to look at my edits objectively, you would see that without them, no one would have realized that Dr. Phil is not a licensed doctor or professional. You might consider that to be "negative, unencyclopedic micro-details" but most other good editors would consider this to be objective, important information. Please re-read the Wikipedia guidelines before you continue to personally attack my good works.Wikeye (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By libeling Dr. Phil as having relations with a teenaged girl, you are in severe violation of wikipedia policy. By adding private addresses of living people to wikipedia articles, you are violating the privacy of public figures. The fact that I wont tolerate these reckless violations of wikipedia policy does not make me a PR person. Indeed I should be asking if you’re a PR person, hired by one of Oprah’s many media rivals to damage her reputation or the damage the reputation of her spinoff Dr. Phil. Please explain why almost all of your edits are on Oprah, her school, or her spinoff Dr. Phil, and please explain why you ONLY add content that does damage to their reputations Flynneffects (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't libeled Dr. Phil. If anyone did, it's the 19-year-old patient of Dr. Phil's who claimed that they had sex or the Texas State Board which determined, after an investigation, that the two engaged in "inappropriate sexual relations." I'm cautioning Ward3001 (talk) about his language, since calling my arguments "bullshit" could be viewed as a personal attack, which we should avoid, although I think that what he means by "bullshit" is something that contradicts his personal worldview. I'm saying that if you and he can't follow the rules, then don't post here. Responsible users know that. Otherwise, feel free to post anything you like--even if it contradicts my opinion. Just because you two interpret things differently than I do, you don't have to get all nasty and vengeful. And stop accusing me of smearing public figures. It's all factual and documented. If the content I add does damage to a reputation (in your opinion), perhaps that reputation was not deserved. Surely you don't believe that I libeled Dr. Phil or damaged his reputation by documenting that he lost his professional license, even though he went through great lengths to present himself as a qualified "doctor" or mental health professional prior to the Texas State Board case coming to light. Do you think that hiding or glossing over that information would make the Wikipedia article more accurate or informative?Wikeye (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)